Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. No matter which skill you use, antagonizing a creature takes a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, and has a DC equal to the target’s Hit Dice + the target’s Wisdom modifier. You cannot make this check against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence score of 3 or lower. Before you make these checks, you may make a Sense Motive check (DC 20) as a swift action to gain an insight bonus on these Diplomacy or Intimitade checks equal to your Charisma bonus until the end of your next turn. The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.
Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a –2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.
Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
So is it me or is the DC on this ridiculously low? Was this intended as the great mage equalizer? Should it have been 10+level + wisdom modifier? I mean use this on a 5th level mage with a 10 wisdom and the DC is 5? Seems broken to me
Don't forget you have a chance to up ypur check woth DC 20 Sense Motive...
I'm guessing they forgot a 10, at least.
Yeah, I guess it should be 10+ stuff (or an opposed check). That's what Demoralise uses.
I don't have Ultimate Magic at the moment so forgive me if I missed something, but does this have the same limitation as the skill uses of Diplomancy and Intimidate? That you can't use them against player characters?
Because if a non-player character forced my character, especially a wizard/sorcerer/monk/paladin, to fly in a rage without the use of magic, I might have to fly into a rage.
I'm kidding of course, but I would very sore about it. I have no problem with the penalties of the diplomancy one but the intimidate effect is essentially taking away player control, which does not sit well with me.
@GravesScion: So you don´t allow Charm or Compulsion spells against PCs either?
They must feel VERY special. They must steam-roll over alot of monsters built around charm/compulsion effects, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate this feat. It's just building off the terrible Intimidate mechanics.
Boosting your Intimidate score is really, really easy. Boosting your defense of Intimidate is really, really hard (only by gaining more HD or bumping Wisdom).
A half-orc inquisitor built for intimidation will succeed almost all the time at this check, even if it is against a level 20 cleric with maxed out Wisdom, and even if the inquisitor is half his level, and even if assuming this check is supposed to be 10+HD+Wis Mod. And there is nothing the cleric can do about it....
And any other character is all but defenseless against intimidate, even without optimization (ie they just put ranks into intimidate, and nothing else).
In this feat, even if it is 10+HD+Wis Mod, it still is ridiculously easy to achieve. And being able to practically auto-succeed on forcing any spellcaster to run up into melee and try to swipe at you is absolutely retarded.
Edit: Also what's with the Dex requirement?
Pardon my asking, but why is there a minimum Dexterity requirement for what sounds like more of a Charisma-based feat?
Pardon my asking, but why is there a minimum Dexterity requirement for what sounds like more of a Charisma-based feat?
Yeah, that´s probably Errata too...
I agree with the critique of the general functioning of intimidation,
i.e. target DC that is practically static compared to how you can improve a skill check.
In this case, the effect is specifically called out as mind-effecting, so it seems reasonable that bonuses to will save vs. mind-affecting would apply, much less bonuses vs. fear (though the diplomacy usage wouldn´t seem to trigger that one). I´m generally amenable to allowing appropriate Save Bonuses to apply to the DC, excepting ones applicable only to magic, though if you allow too many, it becomes too hard for anybody BUT an over-optimizer. But if it worked much differently, it just wouldn´t make any sense in context of how Intimidate normally works... I certainly don´t think ´stealth errata´ applying ´fixes´ to new material but not the old stuff is the way to go.
But hey, it´s a Standard Action that´s not directly smashing your face in or otherwise doing much, and it´s not like there´s tons of stuff between Core, APG, and this book, allowing Spellcasters to jack their Spell DCs into the stratosphere, so I don´t see the big complaint. They are physically attacking you (if you choose that option) if it works, so it´s not like there´s no down-side...
I don't have Ultimate Magic at the moment so forgive me if I missed something, but does this have the same limitation as the skill uses of Diplomancy and Intimidate? That you can't use them against player characters?
Intimidate doesn't have any "can't be used against player characters" limitations, so I doubt this one does either.
Edit: I also agree about the Intimidate mechanic being poor in general. It's far too easy to succeed at the check, so anything that causes more penalties than the original mechanic's shaken condition should be looked at very carefully.
@GravesScion: So you don´t allow Charm or Compulsion spells against PCs either?
They must feel VERY special. They must steam-roll over alot of monsters built around charm/compulsion effects, too.
Allow me to repeat what I wrote:
Because if a non-player character forced my character, especially a wizard/sorcerer/monk/paladin, to fly in a rage without the use of magic , I might have to fly into a rage.
Just my opinion but my belief, as both a player and a Dungeon Master, is that no ability that is not magical, supernatural or extraordinary in nature should dictate the actions of a player character.
To be honest, I'm not to hot about about some supernatural/extraordinary abilities either.
I just don't see anyone saying something so insulting or intimidating that it would convince my wizard to engage in melee combat when he could just as well use magic. Same would go for an archer ranger that's standing thirty feet away.
I don't have Ultimate Magic at the moment so forgive me if I missed something, but does this have the same limitation as the skill uses of Diplomancy and Intimidate? That you can't use them against player characters?Intimidate doesn't have any "can't be used against player characters" limitations, so I doubt this one does either.
Edit: I also agree about the Intimidate mechanic being poor in general. It's far too easy to succeed at the check, so anything that causes more penalties than the original mechanic's shaken condition should be looked at very carefully.
So it would seem that I have been unknowingly house ruleing that Player Characters are immune to the attitude effecting parts of intimidate.
However, I think I will continue to play it that way. I don't see why you should be able to affect the attitudes of Player Characters with intimidate when you cannot do so with diplomancy.
Additional I find that the word 'Opponents' was used to be a bit vague. I mean what do you consider an opponent? Can you intimidate a merchant into giving you a better deal on goods? He's not an opponent in the standard sense.
And this isn't even getting to the fact that this is a horrendously worded feat in general.
...Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. On its next turn, the target must attempt to make a melee attack against you. The effect ends if the creature is prevented from reaching you or attempting to do so would harm it (for example, if you are on the other side of a chasm or a wall of fire). If it cannot reach you on its turn, you may make the check again as an immediate action to extend the effect for 1 round (but cannot extend it thereafter). The effect ends as soon as the creature makes a melee attack against you. Once you have targeted a creature with this ability, you cannot target it again for 1 day.
So the effect ends if the creature is prevented from attacking you. But at what point? Must the caster move up to the chasm for instance, or attempt to maneuver around the wall of fire? Must the target move as far as possible (eg double move or run)? Or if the target can't attack you (or would be damaged in doing so) does the target retain all of it's actions, and can do whatever it wants?
@GravesScion: OK that´s your right, but in a game where (Ex) abilities achieve things people in the real-world couldn´t distinguish from ´magic´, I don´t see the big deal. The Feat as written does seem to have several Errata issues just at face value, not dealing with opinions about Intimidate mechanics in general.
Looks like they are trying to create a Aggro mechanic. It's use is a little confusing but i like that they are trying.
I'd actually like to see a fighter only feat/rage power/stalwart defender power that let's you make this check vs all enemies within 30ft.
Pally's already get 'challenge evil'....
Looks like they are trying to create a Aggro mechanic. It's use is a little confusing but i like that they are trying.
I'd actually like to see a fighter only feat/rage power/stalwart defender power that let's you make this check vs all enemies within 30ft.
Pally's already get 'challenge evil'....
Forcing aggro is one thing. Forcing mages to come out of the sky, and archers to come out of hiding and attempt to uselessly beat on the intimidator with their bare hands, or maybe some crappy club or knife for a round or two is retarded. Doing this with practically a 100% success rate (if you put in ANY effort), without the mages and rangers being able to do anything about it is broken.
Hm. In 3.5, modifiers to saves vs fear was part of the DC for Intimidate (in addition to being an opposed check, but the PF version is essentially just the opponent taking 10 on that check, which I like). I wonder why that was removed. It seems perfectly natural to add things like "bravery" to the DC vs Intimidate.
In fact, it feels so natural that I think I'll house rule that back in :)
What I'd really like though is if Intimidate set the DC for a Will save. That way both the skill and the opponent's defenses would scale fairly appropriately.
I've already declared my intention to my players that I'm going to modify the feat. In part, because I don't like the idea of forcing the mage into melee without any real way to resist, and also because if someone in my game insisted in using it as written, I would return the favor by having an opponent use it on them and see how they liked it.
I've already declared my intention to my players that I'm going to modify the feat. In part, because I don't like the idea of forcing the mage into melee without any real way to resist, and also because if someone in my game insisted in using it as written, I would return the favor by having an opponent use it on them and see how they liked it.Odds are the person using it wants to be in melee anyway and wouldnt mind the rage boost. use it again the -other- people in the group, instead. >:)
Well...yeah, that goes without saying, doesn't it?
Besides, what you do is have a dragon with it's half-dragon offspring. The half-dragon has the feat, hits the fighter with it, and drags the fighter over into the corner...where the offspring promptly sets off a trap by stepping on it, launching multiple continuous jets of the energy type the half-dragon is immune to. Meanwhile, the dragon beats the hell out of the rest of the party.
I don't have Ultimate Magic at the moment so forgive me if I missed something, but does this have the same limitation as the skill uses of Diplomancy and Intimidate? That you can't use them against player characters?
Because if a non-player character forced my character, especially a wizard/sorcerer/monk/paladin, to fly in a rage without the use of magic, I might have to fly into a rage.
I'm kidding of course, but I would very sore about it. I have no problem with the penalties of the diplomancy one but the intimidate effect is essentially taking away player control, which does not sit well with me.
srsly?
People are damned easy to influence. Be it positioning of impulse purchase items at checkouts, musical, temperature, and scent based cues to influence purchasing behaviour right though to baiting others into violence in sport and the play ground.
The fact that the social skills don't work on pcs remains on of the things that most desperately needs sorting out in the system.
People lose control of themselves, the rules should reflect that, and if you happen not to like it, build a character who is more resistant to it.
|
Additional I find that the word 'Opponents' was used to be a bit vague. I mean what do you consider an opponent? Can you intimidate a merchant into giving you a better deal on goods? He's not an opponent in the standard sense.
Yes, you can. It is what the Mafia and relate organizations do every day.
The use of the antagonize feat in combat is already absurd, but think about it use in a social setting.
If it can be used against PC (and at least for the intimidate version they aren't immune) this feat will force the target to make a melee attack against you. In the middle of the Royal Banquet Hall, with the King present.
That will end with the target as a minimum being forced to a duel against the offended party (or forced to apologize in a very abject manner) and at worst to hanged for drawing a weapon in presence of the king.
Role playing become roll playing. And if a PC is the target of the move not even that as the target has only a passive role.
The use of the antagonize feat in combat is already absurd, but think about it use in a social setting.
If it can be used against PC (and at least for the intimidate version they aren't immune) this feat will force the target to make a melee attack against you. In the middle of the Royal Banquet Hall, with the King present.
That will end with the target as a minimum being forced to a duel against the offended party (or forced to apologize in a very abject manner) and at worst to hanged for drawing a weapon in presence of the king.
OK, but there very well may be legal repurcussions for doing whatever this Feat entails, if there are enough witnesses to what you did in the first place.
I don't have Ultimate Magic at the moment so forgive me if I missed something, but does this have the same limitation as the skill uses of Diplomancy and Intimidate? That you can't use them against player characters?
Because if a non-player character forced my character, especially a wizard/sorcerer/monk/paladin, to fly in a rage without the use of magic, I might have to fly into a rage.
I'm kidding of course, but I would very sore about it. I have no problem with the penalties of the diplomancy one but the intimidate effect is essentially taking away player control, which does not sit well with me.
srsly?
People are damned easy to influence. Be it positioning of impulse purchase items at checkouts, musical, temperature, and scent based cues to influence purchasing behaviour right though to baiting others into violence in sport and the play ground.
The fact that the social skills don't work on pcs remains on of the things that most desperately needs sorting out in the system.
People lose control of themselves, the rules should reflect that, and if you happen not to like it, build a character who is more resistant to it.
That's the issue I have with it, as written, which admittedly I suspect is an error, you really can't. It is so easy to get a high intimidate you can build a character that will virtually never fail against any character of equal level
That`s right, and why there hasn`t been any dissenting opinions that this is definitely Errata in not using the normal 10+stuff formula that Intimidate usually uses.
So fighter can taunt now?
So sorcerers can taunt now? Better than fighters?
So fighter can taunt a wizard in a way the wizard will charge in melee? Why? Or is "harmful"? What are the basis to decide this?
an archer will move to melee even if not in rage like a barbarian?
This feat is very, very, very odd.
That`s right, and why there hasn`t been any dissenting opinions that this is definitely Errata in not using the normal 10+stuff formula that Intimidate usually uses.
Even with the +10 formula I still think its kind of broken. Taking the Level 20 cleric used above with a 26 wisdom using the +10 formula the DC is now 38. Give that same sorcerer above 2 more charisma and 7 more skill point adds at level 10 they now have an intimidate of 28 (1 from charisma, 7 from adds, 3 more from skill focus on a skill over 10 adds). That means a character half the level of the 20th lvl character can beat the dc for the 20th level character on an 10 or higher.
Now make the 20th level char a wiazrd with maybe a 14 wisdom and the dc is only 34 meaning they succeed on a 6 or higher against a mage twice their level
I like the concept, but the implementation is attrocious. I think this would be a total re-write if I included it in my game.
could have sense a taunt feat with a target already ion combat threatening an ally, in a X feet radius OR a threatened target. You use the standard action to force him to fight you. And I'm not completely sure is not abusable in this version, too.
But the feat above leads to a lot of nonsense.
btw, it occured to me that this Feat has no place whatsoever in Ultimate MAGIC.
i thought the spell-less ranger variant with traps was wierd, but those are MAGICAL traps.
this belongs in Ultimate Combat. I wouldn`t be surprised to see Feats, items, etc, giving better defenses against it there. Though given the baseline mechanic for Intimidate (assuming 10+stuff is Errata`d back in) is so wack, it`s a very wierd scenario, either those Feats, etc, are very powerful and de facto required to have a strong defense, or they are scaled appropriate to the internal logic of Intimidate, and thus aren´t all that strong a defense.
But hey, maybe Intimidate itself could be Errata`d in the Core Book, who knows...?
btw, it occured to me that this Feat has no place whatsoever in Ultimate MAGIC.
i thought the spell-less ranger variant with traps was wierd, but those are MAGICAL traps.
this belongs in Ultimate Combat. I wouldn`t be surprised to see Feats, items, etc, giving better defenses against it there. Though given the baseline mechanic for Intimidate (assuming 10+stuff is Errata`d back in) is so wack, it`s a very wierd scenario, either those Feats, etc, are very powerful and de facto required to have a strong defense, or they are scaled appropriate to the internal logic of Intimidate, and thus aren´t all that strong a defense.But hey, maybe Intimidate itself could be Errata`d in the Core Book, who knows...?
Quandary, this feat forces a wizard full of spellslot to beat me up with his stick.
Seriously. Is not a metter of DC. Is a matter of gameworld internal consistency. I stuck with 3.5 and PF for this, instead of going 4th edition.
Seriously. I start to be tired of great ideas with awful implementations.
Aggro mechanics might work well for computer games, but they are seriously retarded for role playing games.
Why would a wizard beat you with a stick if he is provoked & angry with you?
That's like saying a mafia boss will punch you in the face and not shoot you dead if he gets really angry with your behaviour.
Really stupid and makes no sense.
|
|
I'll more than likely make it:
Prerequisites: Cha 13, BAB +1
DC=10+target HD+target WIS
Diplomacy result: Same.
Intimidate result: Must use at least a standard action to attempt to harm, penalize, or otherwise cause a negative effect to you. This can be attacking you, casting a damaging spell targeting you, casting a spell that hinders you, etc.
Probably add something for a Bluff check as well...
I actually really like the "marking" mechanics of 4e. Giving a chain of feats or several different chain of feats that lets melee characters do something similar is a really good idea, actually.
In that sense I think the diplomacy mechanic of this feat might be ok. I might even consider making the diplomacy based part of the feat into a move or swift action, and even having some other feats after this (or even scaling the feat itself based on your Diplomacy check) provide enhanced penalties beyond -2 at later levels.
The intimidate one would NEVER see the light of day in anything I ever ran....and as a player in someone's campaign I would argue vehemently against its introduction...it's just going to lead to absolute absurdity if PCs and NPCs are using the Intimidate part of this feat. It would make anything except strong melee characters almost unplayable, really.
So between Fickle Winds (totally rendering archers ineffective) and Antagonize, ranged characters of almost any kind got absolutely killed in UM.
I'll more than likely make it:
Prerequisites: Cha 13, BAB +1
DC=10+target HD+target WIS
Diplomacy result: Same.
Intimidate result: Must use at least a standard action to attempt to harm, penalize, or otherwise cause a negative effect to you. This can be attacking you, casting a damaging spell targeting you, casting a spell that hinders you, etc.Probably add something for a Bluff check as well...
Yeah the prereqs completely baffle me. As does the DC. . .
The 4e pandering is eh, but whatever. There have been several experiments in the "taunt" effect in 3.X. None of them were particularly good though. . .
I'm not saying a mechanic like this isn't needed. . . it might be. But it's definitely a good way to make fighters get intimidate (:
|
|
OK, but there very well may be legal repurcussions for doing whatever this Feat entails, if there are enough witnesses to what you did in the first place.The use of the antagonize feat in combat is already absurd, but think about it use in a social setting.
If it can be used against PC (and at least for the intimidate version they aren't immune) this feat will force the target to make a melee attack against you. In the middle of the Royal Banquet Hall, with the King present.
That will end with the target as a minimum being forced to a duel against the offended party (or forced to apologize in a very abject manner) and at worst to hanged for drawing a weapon in presence of the king.
Whether with biting remarks or hurtful words, you are adept at making creatures angry with you.
Legal repercussions? Improbable.
Especially if you are good enough in you use of the "hurtful words" for your target.Similar tactic to discredit people were often used in the European courts (and in those of all the world I think) and are used today in Democratic parliaments of all the world.
|
|
That`s right, and why there hasn`t been any dissenting opinions that this is definitely Errata in not using the normal 10+stuff formula that Intimidate usually uses.Even with the +10 formula I still think its kind of broken. Taking the Level 20 cleric used above with a 26 wisdom using the +10 formula the DC is now 38. Give that same sorcerer above 2 more charisma and 7 more skill point adds at level 10 they now have an intimidate of 28 (1 from charisma, 7 from adds, 3 more from skill focus on a skill over 10 adds). That means a character half the level of the 20th lvl character can beat the dc for the 20th level character on an 10 or higher.
Now make the 20th level char a wiazrd with maybe a 14 wisdom and the dc is only 34 meaning they succeed on a 6 or higher against a mage twice their level
Note that if he make his sense motive check he will add another +6 (his charisma again).
The ultimate weapon at court:
Circlet of Persuasion
This silver headband grants a +3 competence bonus on the wearer's Charisma-based checks.
Ultimate defence:
send a construct of undead ambassador.
That's the issue I have with it, as written, which admittedly I suspect is an error, you really can't. It is so easy to get a high intimidate you can build a character that will virtually never fail against any character of equal levelI don't have Ultimate Magic at the moment so forgive me if I missed something, but does this have the same limitation as the skill uses of Diplomancy and Intimidate? That you can't use them against player characters?
Because if a non-player character forced my character, especially a wizard/sorcerer/monk/paladin, to fly in a rage without the use of magic, I might have to fly into a rage.
I'm kidding of course, but I would very sore about it. I have no problem with the penalties of the diplomancy one but the intimidate effect is essentially taking away player control, which does not sit well with me.
srsly?
People are damned easy to influence. Be it positioning of impulse purchase items at checkouts, musical, temperature, and scent based cues to influence purchasing behaviour right though to baiting others into violence in sport and the play ground.
The fact that the social skills don't work on pcs remains on of the things that most desperately needs sorting out in the system.
People lose control of themselves, the rules should reflect that, and if you happen not to like it, build a character who is more resistant to it.
Yes, this specific ability likely has an errata issue. However, I wasting more generally.
People lose control of themselves, the rules should reflect that, and if you happen not to like it, build a character who is more resistant to it.Without magic making you immune to mind-affecting abilities, the only way to be resistant is to be high level and have high wisdom. So, the most mellow person on the world, say a level 20 cleric with 26 wisdom. Without errata'ing the feat, that means the DC to make them go into a blind rage is 28.
A super awesome level 3 sorcerer that focuses on being terrifying could have a 20 charisma, skill focus, persuasive, intimdate trait, and ranks has a +17 to his Intimidate, and I'm sure there's other ways to get that higher. So he has a 45% of making the cleric go nutty. At least if it were 10+HD+Wis, he couldnt do it until level 4 (ont a nat 20).
I had not mentioned this specific feat. I was responding to GravesScion's generalised position on non-magical abilities removing control of a PC from their player. I am really not sure of the relevance of your reply.
I agree; even leaving the DC aside, this feat is a hot mess (or at least the Intimidate part of it is).
So the target has to move towards me and make an attack? How fast is he compelled to move towards me? A walk? An all-out sprint? Would a wizard be forced to cast Teleport, if he had it memorized?
Ugh.
Aggro mechanics might work well for computer games, but they are seriously retarded for role playing games.
Why would a wizard beat you with a stick if he is provoked & angry with you?
That's like saying a mafia boss will punch you in the face and not shoot you dead if he gets really angry with your behaviour.
Really stupid and makes no sense.
Because people don't only make rational decisions. Baiting people into violence(especially in high tension or high stress surroundings is easy) and people who react to such baiting often do so in an illogical fashion.
Ever see the Soprano's? Plenty of times Tony Soprano lost his cool a beat the hell out of someone. I have no problem with this feat thematically I think it can create some great RP, its the DC that bothers me. And honestly even if you succeed, its one round which is no auto win against a well buffed wizard in most cases
Because people don't only make rational decisions. Baiting people into violence(especially in high tension or high stress surroundings is easy) and people who react to such baiting often do so in an illogical fashion.Aggro mechanics might work well for computer games, but they are seriously retarded for role playing games.
Why would a wizard beat you with a stick if he is provoked & angry with you?
That's like saying a mafia boss will punch you in the face and not shoot you dead if he gets really angry with your behaviour.
Really stupid and makes no sense.
Are you serious ? Baiting people into violence in stress situations might be easy, but they will most certainly choose an effective way to get to you if they want to kill you or they feel their life is threatened.
Let's say you have a shotgun and you've been verbally baited in combat situation by a guy who's also armed with a lethal weapon.
Will you shoot him in the face or run to him and punch him while being aware that he is a threat to your life ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
.
..
...
....
.....
Don't make me make you angry.
You wouldn't like me when you make me make you angry..
Forcing aggro is one thing. Forcing mages to come out of the sky, and archers to come out of hiding and attempt to uselessly beat on the intimidator with their bare hands, or maybe some crappy club or knife for a round or two is retarded. Doing this with practically a 100% success rate (if you put in ANY effort), without the mages and rangers being able to do anything about it is broken.Looks like they are trying to create a Aggro mechanic. It's use is a little confusing but i like that they are trying.
I'd actually like to see a fighter only feat/rage power/stalwart defender power that let's you make this check vs all enemies within 30ft.
Pally's already get 'challenge evil'....
Agreed.
This is disturbing. I haven't even read the book yet (I'll wait until the print version shows up) and already I know of more stuff that is just wrong than in any other book. Not stuff I don't agree on a flavour level, but stuff that should not be.
Disturbing might not be the right word. Disappointing.
My current house rule for the save is going to be 10 + HD + Will Save. And it will be a fear effect, so fighters get their bravery, and higher level paladins are immune.
At least this way, it requires some effort on the intimidator's part to succeed. Also, PCs actually have a way to boost their defense.
DC's would range from something like this for PCs:
5th level
16 - 27 DC
10th level
25 - 37 DC
15th level
33 - 44 DC
20th level
51 - 65 DC
A half-orc inquisitor still auto-succeeds against low will characters of equal level with modest investment, but he needs to heavily invest in quite a few feats, or hope for some lucky dice in order to succeed against higher will opponents.